Architecture, Art and Philosophy
Tekst Langer: Feeling and Form p.69-92
p.42 – tekst Herder
He relised that hearing vision and touching is the same and the main of touching is sculpture
You cant use the same sense (seeing and touching) is the samee with art and sculpture, if a feature is
specific with a certain color (for example, to create a good painHng, you need to have these,;.. and you
can only perceive that with your eyes and not with your hands, as the same for sculptures) it c n be the
same because they have a different characterisHc, so you can have the same origin like touching or seeing
so they can simply transpose the one with the painHng to the same feeling with the sculpture.
p.43
You should divide art into 3 seecHons with each there domain (surface, Hme and depth and force) and
divides also the sounds (to sounds), forms (related to force, the resistance) and seeing
These limits are imposed by nature itself, its normal that you have these things
In Music, composers can use sounds that can do something close to depicHng, sounds like a bird, evoke an
image of imaginaHon with sound but it only leads to monstrosiHes.
p.44?
Greenburg:
In 20th century, modernist painHng tekst; where throuout history the different arts evolve to their essence
and that is a flat surface. (like cubism,…) they try to make depth and space and different arHst use these
fragmataHons or moogrome surfaces like mondriaan,… PainHng moves towards it essence, the surface
and sculptures do it to true maVer, chuncks of stone,… painHng=flatness and sculpture=material and each
art has its domain and it should sHck to its domain. Artwork is impure because they mix stuff
p.44-45
The reference to the panel and the painter puts paint on the flat surface to create a appearance of things
and drrams are boundless and you can do anything of a dream of a painter but a sculpture has
restricHons, about the things that sculptures should not do.
1 )He should only do things in his domain, so sont put things next to each other or on top of each other,
only from each other and individual and if it is a free object without no other restricHons around it. A
painHng can represent a whole scene but a sculpture should stay with one thing.example; Lacoon
sculpture: It’s a narraHve with differntent components, different compnents (a snake, 3 men,…) but you
see it as an image and you read the stoy without paying aVenHon to the volumes. You are watching the
scene. You watch it as if it were a painHng. Different things a long side one another. So a sculpture should
be one object, if you want that relaHon you should not have a mix of things (lacoon) but one thing.
2) The second thing is using color.
3) present objects that aren’t worthless, but have a life, not frogs or matresses (hemoforite sculpture,
bernini) You have the figure and its becoming one with the matres although it sould not be connected but
seen only the woman-man.
The diffeeence between presentaHon (sculpture) and representaHon (picture, painHng) and therefor it is
never the real thing (painHng) it is a kind of dream. PainHng has no limits, you can evoke all sorts of
stories, like a dream, but sculpture doesn’t want that same effect, it is seeking for maVer, form.
,Vision doesn’t have the same relaHon with touching, vision you have everything reduced to an image but
touching is as big as how far you can touch it, so by moving you can sens how big it is but only by moving.
If eeyes would have hands, ot wouldn’t work the same. Arch bodies are sculptural but you don’t need the sens
of touching if your eye already does it. It creates an invitaHon to an architectural object. But you need single
object and architecture is like that, but in ciHes there is a tension because the buildings should be all together in
the city and not stand out, so that creates a tension of wanHng to be individual like a sculpture should be. A
sculpture has no relaHon to funcHonality, but if you make a good building, why should it have a tension? Should
we then focus more like doing it good or bad? We should not ridicuulize shapes (like Ghery, that uses volumes
with no funcHonality, so it’s a sculpture but what does it mean then? It looks a certain way for selfies but not a
quality to invite the eye) – connecHon with architecture
Herhaling:
Winckelman : what the spectator experiences, about the intensity of the art, how a person looks at art and he
refers to Pigmalium, as an illusion
è Herder goes furder than Winkelman, he realisees that when you encounter a sculpture, that you eyes
become hands, watching in a different maVer, a different adtude, maVer, a new exploring way as if they
aree touching it
Herder: sees it as a kind of illusion, but not in the sense that you are watching something and therefor mislead
by what you see, but now that vidion shows a visial spectrum, we see flat images (barkley) but now we see in
aestheHcs, there is a illusion that brings you back to the truth, your eyes look at them in a way that Is more
approximate than touching, your not only watching with yout eyes but also feeling
p.42 --> reference to the relaHon with eos, the eroHc, the relaHon that you have with someone but now with a
work of art. A reference with a inHmate relaHon
Intelect want to know but eros is taking Hme to have a inHmate connecHon.
Zink: aestecHc with a calmness if you stand in front of a painHng for example, you have no desire towards the
work of art but Herder is moree touching, so that you don’t have a meer op afstand reelaHon to the artwork
(only applies to sculptures)
Winkelman; speaks of becoming a life (the sculpture) and pigmalium became in love with the sculpture self
IIts not literaly a maVer of touching the sculture but the idea that when you look at it, you touch it. But if you
touch it, it will be a cold sculpture and not the eroHc anymore, so he means more the way that you look, watch
and sense the sculpture.
First when you are born, the first years, you touch a lot and then vision takes over and you have leaned by
society not to touch anything, so art has athe potenHal ot give you back the touch feeling of the way that you
look at it, he suggests that art has the power to do that without even touching. We atomaHcaly have the
goesHng to touch a lot of things. But we now must bound with something without even touching is, and that is
the art of art.
, p.69
The text is explaining the concept of mo2fs in the decora2ve arts and how fundamental forms, such
as the circle, triangle, and spiral, serve as organizing devices for ar2s2c crea2on. These basic shapes,
referred to as mo2fs of design, are not considered art "works" or standalone ornaments. Instead,
they act as star2ng points for ar2s2c composi2on, mo2va2ng and guiding the ar2st's imagina2on.
The term "mo2f" implies a func2on: these forms provide a founda2on for ar2s2c expression, driving
the crea2ve process forward and influencing its progression. The text suggests that mo2fs are not just
geometric shapes but are also capable of sugges2ng familiar objects or forms. For example, a circle
with a marked center and radia2ng design can suggest a flower, guiding the ar2st's composi2on in
that direc2on. The result is a new crea2on—an ar2s2c representa2on or illusion of an object.
The text further illustrates the example of the floral roseFe, a widespread ornamental design found in
various cultures and historical periods. Despite formal and oHen fantas2cal treatments, such as
spirals or radial lines, the central theme remains unmistakably that of a flower. The designs are
present on diverse items like Assyrian costumes, Chinese vases, Indian implements, Peruvian
carvings, Roman breastplates, European peasant furniture, and Gothic cathedral rose windows.
The crucial point emphasized is that, in these ar2s2c inven2ons, the representa2on of a flower
becomes a dominant and unmistakable element. Although these designs may not be ini2ally
perceived as geometric forms, the text suggests that they are commonly seen as conven2onalized
pictures of flowers rather than strictly abstract shapes
Shorter:
The text talks about basic shapes like circles and triangles, called mo2fs, used in art to inspire
crea2vity. These mo2fs aren't art on their own but help ar2sts get started on a design. It gives the
example of floral designs found in different cultures, showing how these shapes, like circles and
spirals, are used to create recognizable objects like flowers. The main idea is that these shapes aren't
just abstract; they're oHen seen as pictures of familiar things, like flowers.
p.69-71
The text is about that it is not an abstracHon, she turns it upside down, first it was form, that in a cave for
example, we would have moHvs (forms that are really abstract) and these moHves carry a moHvaHon. Different
cultures people would make basic kind of elements, circles are round but when you look at them, you would
start seeing things in them ookla zijn ze cirkles, but you imaginaHon sees it as the see or a vase,…. Or in het
example, it started to look like a flower so –> pictures began with just making shapes and then people started
seeing in these shapes a connecHon that would look like real objects. So not just a process of people seeing
things in nature and then making them abstract. That is not what is happening but just the opposite and making
shapes to just makje shapes and then people started use these shapes to represent it to objects, like icons of the
object, a symbol of that idea. We have the idea that art started from imitaHng nature and then abstract art
started to develop but she says that it is the other way around.
Then, just as these shapes are ornamental, color was not used with the meaning, so in a similar way these
cultures used color just for creaHvity but actualy now they give a meaning to it. They didn’t have a way of
markijg things with color. If the bull had blue or black eyes, it is not because they knew that the bull could have
blue or black eyes, but they just used a color as any other color, without refecHon. So when you find these vases
it is never a maVer of representaHon, it looks like a landscape with all places for thee things on the vase but it is
just a shape to put on the vase. SO art iniHally is not a shape in space but a shape of space. The available space
lei on the vase is organized based on the added things. But not orderly, not oganised. It is not that there is a
flower that you have to crate a landschape. That is a schape in space but before the used a form to create space.
Tekst Langer: Feeling and Form p.69-92
p.42 – tekst Herder
He relised that hearing vision and touching is the same and the main of touching is sculpture
You cant use the same sense (seeing and touching) is the samee with art and sculpture, if a feature is
specific with a certain color (for example, to create a good painHng, you need to have these,;.. and you
can only perceive that with your eyes and not with your hands, as the same for sculptures) it c n be the
same because they have a different characterisHc, so you can have the same origin like touching or seeing
so they can simply transpose the one with the painHng to the same feeling with the sculpture.
p.43
You should divide art into 3 seecHons with each there domain (surface, Hme and depth and force) and
divides also the sounds (to sounds), forms (related to force, the resistance) and seeing
These limits are imposed by nature itself, its normal that you have these things
In Music, composers can use sounds that can do something close to depicHng, sounds like a bird, evoke an
image of imaginaHon with sound but it only leads to monstrosiHes.
p.44?
Greenburg:
In 20th century, modernist painHng tekst; where throuout history the different arts evolve to their essence
and that is a flat surface. (like cubism,…) they try to make depth and space and different arHst use these
fragmataHons or moogrome surfaces like mondriaan,… PainHng moves towards it essence, the surface
and sculptures do it to true maVer, chuncks of stone,… painHng=flatness and sculpture=material and each
art has its domain and it should sHck to its domain. Artwork is impure because they mix stuff
p.44-45
The reference to the panel and the painter puts paint on the flat surface to create a appearance of things
and drrams are boundless and you can do anything of a dream of a painter but a sculpture has
restricHons, about the things that sculptures should not do.
1 )He should only do things in his domain, so sont put things next to each other or on top of each other,
only from each other and individual and if it is a free object without no other restricHons around it. A
painHng can represent a whole scene but a sculpture should stay with one thing.example; Lacoon
sculpture: It’s a narraHve with differntent components, different compnents (a snake, 3 men,…) but you
see it as an image and you read the stoy without paying aVenHon to the volumes. You are watching the
scene. You watch it as if it were a painHng. Different things a long side one another. So a sculpture should
be one object, if you want that relaHon you should not have a mix of things (lacoon) but one thing.
2) The second thing is using color.
3) present objects that aren’t worthless, but have a life, not frogs or matresses (hemoforite sculpture,
bernini) You have the figure and its becoming one with the matres although it sould not be connected but
seen only the woman-man.
The diffeeence between presentaHon (sculpture) and representaHon (picture, painHng) and therefor it is
never the real thing (painHng) it is a kind of dream. PainHng has no limits, you can evoke all sorts of
stories, like a dream, but sculpture doesn’t want that same effect, it is seeking for maVer, form.
,Vision doesn’t have the same relaHon with touching, vision you have everything reduced to an image but
touching is as big as how far you can touch it, so by moving you can sens how big it is but only by moving.
If eeyes would have hands, ot wouldn’t work the same. Arch bodies are sculptural but you don’t need the sens
of touching if your eye already does it. It creates an invitaHon to an architectural object. But you need single
object and architecture is like that, but in ciHes there is a tension because the buildings should be all together in
the city and not stand out, so that creates a tension of wanHng to be individual like a sculpture should be. A
sculpture has no relaHon to funcHonality, but if you make a good building, why should it have a tension? Should
we then focus more like doing it good or bad? We should not ridicuulize shapes (like Ghery, that uses volumes
with no funcHonality, so it’s a sculpture but what does it mean then? It looks a certain way for selfies but not a
quality to invite the eye) – connecHon with architecture
Herhaling:
Winckelman : what the spectator experiences, about the intensity of the art, how a person looks at art and he
refers to Pigmalium, as an illusion
è Herder goes furder than Winkelman, he realisees that when you encounter a sculpture, that you eyes
become hands, watching in a different maVer, a different adtude, maVer, a new exploring way as if they
aree touching it
Herder: sees it as a kind of illusion, but not in the sense that you are watching something and therefor mislead
by what you see, but now that vidion shows a visial spectrum, we see flat images (barkley) but now we see in
aestheHcs, there is a illusion that brings you back to the truth, your eyes look at them in a way that Is more
approximate than touching, your not only watching with yout eyes but also feeling
p.42 --> reference to the relaHon with eos, the eroHc, the relaHon that you have with someone but now with a
work of art. A reference with a inHmate relaHon
Intelect want to know but eros is taking Hme to have a inHmate connecHon.
Zink: aestecHc with a calmness if you stand in front of a painHng for example, you have no desire towards the
work of art but Herder is moree touching, so that you don’t have a meer op afstand reelaHon to the artwork
(only applies to sculptures)
Winkelman; speaks of becoming a life (the sculpture) and pigmalium became in love with the sculpture self
IIts not literaly a maVer of touching the sculture but the idea that when you look at it, you touch it. But if you
touch it, it will be a cold sculpture and not the eroHc anymore, so he means more the way that you look, watch
and sense the sculpture.
First when you are born, the first years, you touch a lot and then vision takes over and you have leaned by
society not to touch anything, so art has athe potenHal ot give you back the touch feeling of the way that you
look at it, he suggests that art has the power to do that without even touching. We atomaHcaly have the
goesHng to touch a lot of things. But we now must bound with something without even touching is, and that is
the art of art.
, p.69
The text is explaining the concept of mo2fs in the decora2ve arts and how fundamental forms, such
as the circle, triangle, and spiral, serve as organizing devices for ar2s2c crea2on. These basic shapes,
referred to as mo2fs of design, are not considered art "works" or standalone ornaments. Instead,
they act as star2ng points for ar2s2c composi2on, mo2va2ng and guiding the ar2st's imagina2on.
The term "mo2f" implies a func2on: these forms provide a founda2on for ar2s2c expression, driving
the crea2ve process forward and influencing its progression. The text suggests that mo2fs are not just
geometric shapes but are also capable of sugges2ng familiar objects or forms. For example, a circle
with a marked center and radia2ng design can suggest a flower, guiding the ar2st's composi2on in
that direc2on. The result is a new crea2on—an ar2s2c representa2on or illusion of an object.
The text further illustrates the example of the floral roseFe, a widespread ornamental design found in
various cultures and historical periods. Despite formal and oHen fantas2cal treatments, such as
spirals or radial lines, the central theme remains unmistakably that of a flower. The designs are
present on diverse items like Assyrian costumes, Chinese vases, Indian implements, Peruvian
carvings, Roman breastplates, European peasant furniture, and Gothic cathedral rose windows.
The crucial point emphasized is that, in these ar2s2c inven2ons, the representa2on of a flower
becomes a dominant and unmistakable element. Although these designs may not be ini2ally
perceived as geometric forms, the text suggests that they are commonly seen as conven2onalized
pictures of flowers rather than strictly abstract shapes
Shorter:
The text talks about basic shapes like circles and triangles, called mo2fs, used in art to inspire
crea2vity. These mo2fs aren't art on their own but help ar2sts get started on a design. It gives the
example of floral designs found in different cultures, showing how these shapes, like circles and
spirals, are used to create recognizable objects like flowers. The main idea is that these shapes aren't
just abstract; they're oHen seen as pictures of familiar things, like flowers.
p.69-71
The text is about that it is not an abstracHon, she turns it upside down, first it was form, that in a cave for
example, we would have moHvs (forms that are really abstract) and these moHves carry a moHvaHon. Different
cultures people would make basic kind of elements, circles are round but when you look at them, you would
start seeing things in them ookla zijn ze cirkles, but you imaginaHon sees it as the see or a vase,…. Or in het
example, it started to look like a flower so –> pictures began with just making shapes and then people started
seeing in these shapes a connecHon that would look like real objects. So not just a process of people seeing
things in nature and then making them abstract. That is not what is happening but just the opposite and making
shapes to just makje shapes and then people started use these shapes to represent it to objects, like icons of the
object, a symbol of that idea. We have the idea that art started from imitaHng nature and then abstract art
started to develop but she says that it is the other way around.
Then, just as these shapes are ornamental, color was not used with the meaning, so in a similar way these
cultures used color just for creaHvity but actualy now they give a meaning to it. They didn’t have a way of
markijg things with color. If the bull had blue or black eyes, it is not because they knew that the bull could have
blue or black eyes, but they just used a color as any other color, without refecHon. So when you find these vases
it is never a maVer of representaHon, it looks like a landscape with all places for thee things on the vase but it is
just a shape to put on the vase. SO art iniHally is not a shape in space but a shape of space. The available space
lei on the vase is organized based on the added things. But not orderly, not oganised. It is not that there is a
flower that you have to crate a landschape. That is a schape in space but before the used a form to create space.
